Scientist who said climate change sceptics proved wrong accused of hiding truth

Which is nothing new for California that have had more severe and longer droughts in the historic past but were never planned for. The current El Nino may bring heavy rains to Cali this winter but if followed by another La Nina like it did after 98 then it could go back to drought conditions. Previous droughts were long before the currenty AGW scare so it is nothing new.

 

Why Global Warming Would be Good for You

A Shortened version of this article entitled "Why Global Warming Would be Good for You" appeared in The Public InterestWinter 1995 without footnotes, tables, the chart or references. The complete version was published later in 1995 in the Hoover Institution Working Paper series as

GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals
Thomas Gale Moore
Senior Fellow
Hoover Institution

http://stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

 

As monster El Niño looms, the world rushes to get ready

Of course El Nino's are common but everything is blamed on Global Warming now. Makes good headlines.

 

Climate has to do with change over time.

What it does over one 5 year period is barely a data point.

The trend is that earth is warming.

The trend is that oceans are acidifying.

 

I see you're giving up on your claim that water in ice caps creates deserts by locking away the water. Good. That's for the best.

That's a red herring. The fact that a jungle existed somewhere doesn't mean deserts didn't exist elsewhere, no do stories of how the earth was when oceans were in different spots mean much.

Now, the Sahel, or Central Sahara, has dried up as the world has warmed. That's no model, that's directly observed data. How can that be, if you say a warmer world is wetter?

http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=403

Oh, hoosier's claim "The Sahel is greening" is junk science from the GWPF, a denier shill think tank.

http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-gwpf-briefing-paper-no2-sahel-greening

It's amazing how misinformed you are about the actual science.

First, you think a jungle fossil in one place means a desert can't be in another place.

Second, you think climate science predicts more deserts everywhere. It doesn't. You're arguing against a strawman. The point is that your claim that a warmer world is wetter all over is a fantasy.

Yep.

Given the drastic reductions in ice cover at the poles, it clearly is changing.

The ice age is at least 20,000 years away. Or was. We've probably already cancelled the next ice age. Turning up the temperature of earth now is like turning on your furnace full blast in July because winter is eventually coming. If the ice age is 20,000 years away, we should worry about it in 19,000 years instead of roasting ourselves now.

"Hell" is purely your strawman, and therefore not worth discussing. The rational people don't use such emotion-laden terms.

 

It's the deniers who made the 1998 El Nino the centerpiece of their misinformation campaign.

Look at the bright side. After the 2015 El Nino smashes the global high temperature record, you'll be able to spend some years after using a "but ... but ... there's been no warming since 2015!" line to replace your debunked "but ... but .. there's been no warming since 1998!" line.

 

First: We cannot "turn up the temperature of earth" and second it's not hot now, we are in an ice age, its cold now: And given the configuration of the continents that is unlikely to change. But if it did, and the conditions the earth enjoyed in the Eocene returned, that would be quite nice, but given the configuration of the continents the chances of that, are slim to none.

 

The proper scientific terminology used in the lab is neutralization, not acidification but that doesn't sound scary enough. You claim the oceans are acidifying while the only claim is that they will neutralize by some 0.3 PH by 2100 yet the oceans vary from 8.4 to 7.4 ph and don't seem to mind. There is no trend, only a prediction.

The earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age at a constant rate of 0.26C per century and at that rate will warm by 0.2C by 2100. Hardly earth shattering.

- - - Updated - - -

I find it hilarious that the CO2 centric crowd are waiting for natural variation to again claim global warming.

 

Nor unusual. It's cold now, and that will likely continue:

 

I read something interesting about the Younger Dryas event at the beginning of the Holocene where the temperature dropped 18C in a couple of decades in Greenland but it took 400 years for the change to be felt completely along the equator.

 

Not all sources are equal. Do you really think that a lone person like Watts babbling about conspiracy theories on the internet is as credible as the AAAS? Claiming there is any sort symmetry between the claims of climate deniers and, well, sane people is saying that Bill Birnes going on about alien abductions is as credible as David Petraeus talking about military tactics. Seriously, how are the arguments of climate deniers any different than alien conspiracy theorists? Both claim that there's a massive cover up of the truth by the government and scientific establishment. Both claim that only they have uncovered the true story. Both claim that the cover up is being perpetrated for nefarious reasons by various unnamed people who want to take over society. Where's the difference? The only one I see is that climate change involves policies that effect large amounts of money and UFO's don't.

Umm, yes you did. Repeatedly. Like here:

and here:

and here:

And do I need to go on?

So when we're talking about regulations or taxes or funding research into alternate energy sources or anything like that, then it's a given that climate change doesn't exist. But as soon as I point out the morally repugnant consequences that position implies, well then no, no, you never said that climate change doesn't exist. Have you no shame at all? No conscious? And have you forgotten that your previous posts are still there for everyone to see? Just how much are you willing to lower yourself into the mud to keep this farce of climate denial going?

And if you don't cherry pick, the so called "pause" vanishes without a trace. The only way to make the illusion of a pause appear is to cherry pick your starting date of 1998, when there was an exceptionally strong el Nino that resulted in abnormally high temperatures. And even you have to exclude more recent years or it becomes painfully obvious that it's been hotter than '98 for a while now.

ROFLMAO coming from the person who thinks that scientists are fabricating climate change in order to get rich off research grants. Ha! You accuse me of not understanding how the scientific community works when you clearly don't have the faintest idea how grants actually work? LOL, that is rich. And then it gets even better when you say that I dismiss science for politics, when you ignore the AAAS in favor of Bill O'Reilly. Yup, tide goes in, tide goes out, nobody knows why.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy - that is, you can't say that A follows from B because your best friend said so. Appeal to authority is not a factual fallacy. That is, saying that the lump on your elbow is nothing to worry about because your doctor examined it and said it's fine is a perfectly valid argument. It's an even better argument if your doctor and three separate all say the same thing. So unless you're fixing to start doing surgery on yourself with a penknife because appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, you really have no room to talk.

You seem to be confused about what "consensus" means. It simply means that there is general agreement in the community that something is the best explanation we have for something. Consensus does not mean that all research into the subject stops. There is a very strong consensus that quantum mechanics and the standard model are essentially correct. And yet CERN just spent $9 billion to build the LHC, the largest particle collider in the world to try to find out more about it. Consensus is also a dynamic thing, constantly shifting and changing as new information becomes available. But the consensus on some things is supported by so much overwhelming evidence that it would take a discovery of fantastical proportions to shift it. Such as that the Earth is round and not flat. Such as that many diseases are caused by germs. Such as that the climate is warming and humans are responsible.

On "Climategate", you're referring to the leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, correct? I've read those emails. The only way to make anything out of them is to take a few snippets completely out of context and drown them under a pile of baseless innuendo. There's no scandal.

 

Oh good grief. You're equating natural climate change with agw.

You are so wrong. Not once have I ever said climate change doesn't happen.
It's a natural phenomena. agw is a hoax. agw isn't climate change.

 

Well, let the logical fallacies fly!

BTW, one century is a very short span of time. The longest record of temperatures, the CET shows the rise in the 20th century to be exactly the same as the rise in the 18th century. We have only have modern records for a very short period of time. The current temperature record being used for the alarmism and just got adjusted again to make the hiatus magically disappear and is 39% US temperatures which only make up 6% of earths land mass and 92% of that is adjusted/estimated so don't go on about global anything.

You would think after all of the failed alarmist predictions that it would give you pause to think.

 

Both NASA and NOAA use the term "acidification". The ocean is moving toward the acid side. The reason is the addition of co2.

The exact location on the acid-base scale really isn't the issue. The issue is the impact that the change has on life in our oceans. And, that impact appears to be significant.

 

You mean the predicted impact. There is no impact now, just a prediction by 2100. This is one of the problems discussing this with alarmists, they think that model predictions are fact.

 

There are no proofs that global warming actually exist. The Black Lion knows the truth btw.

 

Probably about right maybe a little less. The midline in the graph below is the separation point.

 

No, acidification is in progress today.

"Ocean acidification is occurring because the world’s oceans are absorbing increasing amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, leading to lower pH and greater acidity. This is literally causing a sea change and fundamentally changing the chemistry of the ocean from pole to pole."

http://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/

 

New paper finds CO2 fertilization has greened warm, arid environments by 11%

Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments

- - - Updated - - -

And they discover new things everyday because...the science is settled. LOL

“Scientists solve deep ocean carbon riddle” why dissolved organic carbon isn’t increasing in deep ocean.

 

There are various feedback loops. Being greener helps. Melting the polar ice caps, melting the tundra hurts.

But, the real issue in terms of human impact is more likely to be agriculture.

As for deep ocean carbon, life in the sea is concentrated near the surface, NOT in what is considered "deep ocean".

 

Yeees, anthropogenic global warming is in fact climate change. While it is true that there are other forms of climate change, in the context of current events the climate change going on now is agw. Trying to pretend otherwise is about on the same level as Bart Simpson saying, "I didn't do it!" Quit whining that it's not your fault and man up and take responsibility for your actions. Sheesh. The evidence is absolutely clear cut. In very simple terms, atmospheric CO2 is increasing with a high degree of correlation with temperatures. The amount of CO2 we know we're emitting from burning fossil fuels more than accounts for the increase in the atmosphere. Furthermore isotopic studies indicate that CO2 is coming from fossil fuels. So this is all some grand coincidence? Oh wait, no it's a hoax, right? A hoax that's had its inner workings published in journals. That are read by millions of people around the world. So somehow they're all part of this conspiracy? A global conspiracy of millions of people have managed to keep it secret, even though those same journals are available at public libraries? How exactly do you explain that? CIA mind control satellites? So you're telling the families of the people who've died due to climate change that their loved ones were killed because of mind control rays. Yeah, sorry, that still makes you a despicable lunatic.

Oh boy, more imaginary logical fallacies. Tell me, do you actually know what the term means or is it just one of your stock phrases for whenever you come across an argument you have no response to? Because when you keep accusing me of some unspecified fallacies and yet are unable to point them out, that pretty much either you're deliberately lying or you have no idea what you're saying. Or both.

Yes, a century is a very short time. Which is why such a drastic rise in temperatures is so alarming. And no, the the Central England Temperature data set does not show the same warming over the 19th century as over the 20th. In fact it actually shows very little warming over the 19th century and a great deal of warming in the 20th. Especially since the 1980's when there's been really dramatic warming.

But even if the CET said what you claimed it says, you're refuting the temperature record because it relies heavily on US records, representing too small a portion of the planet by citing the records of a tiny patch of central England? Yeah, that makes all kinds of sense.

The hiatus didn't magically disappear - it never existed in the first place. The only way to make it look like there was a hiatus is by cherrypicking the start date at '98.

Yeah, because temperatures during the Cretaceous are immediately relevant to today. How does the state of the climate millions of years before humans even evolved shed light on our civilization's ability to cope with drastic climate change today? And for the umpteenth time, the absolute temperature doesn't mean a great deal, it's how fast it's changing. Like they say, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.

By that logic you could use the fact we're still making ever more exact maps of the shape of the Earth to declare that the shape of the Earth isn't settled science and declaring the Earth to be flat is just as valid as any other shape.

 

BS. The two don't compare.

AGW is a fairy tale. It doesn't exist.

Climate change is real.

 

Saying it doesn't make it so, and wishful thinking won't bring back the people killed by Katrina.

 

Well temperatures are low and carbon dioxide levels are low but it's not clear to me that the correlation is that strong. 170 million years ago we about 2600 ppm of CO2 and 23C in global mean temp. CO2 has dropped to about 400 ppm as temperatures have dropped to 12C but while the CO2 drop has been pretty straight the temperature has dropped spiked leveled spiked again and then dropped pretty sharply. Clearly there are other factors that have a much stronger effect on temp than Carbon Dioxide.

We do? It's pretty much at the bottom of its natural range, did you think it would stay there forever? And why would you want it to? Humans haven't been around for that long, and clearly CO2 is perfectly capable of rising much higher than today without any input from us.

Further, life thrives in warm moist conditions with abundant CO2 and tends to die in cold dry low CO2 environments, so its unclear to me why I should be concerned about longer growing seasons and higher crop yields should they actually come about.

 

The hiatus never existed in the first place? That is the newly created mantra after making over 50 excuses for the 18 years of missing predicted warming. Aren't you just cherry picking the start date of the warming? How about the late 1600s? Doesn't seem so scary now does it?

BTW, I said the 18th century, not the 19th.

Oh, and as for that 'tiny patch'? You can tell a lot by that 'tiny patch'.

What have global temperatures ever done for us?



See, you really should get out and do some reading and quit parroting what you are told.